商標與網域名稱之間，爭議好發於網域名稱搶註冊之層面，有鑒於國內外已有法規針對此爭議作規範，故本文轉向探討另一層面之問題，亦即通用詞彙與通用頂級域名（gTLD）之結合得否註冊為商標。
此類商標組合於美國實務上屢次出現爭議，舉凡如何識別商標為通用性亦或是描述性、取證上應採納何種證據。
法院與行政機關之多數見解，認為通用詞彙與不具商標上意義之頂級域名之結合，理所當然地無法取得商標保護，並且此類商標具有反競爭之疑慮，基於此二項理由，此類商標組合將無法取得商標註冊。
直至2020年，美國最高法院審理之BOOKING.COM商標註冊案，法院認為只要通用詞彙與頂級域名之結合，於相關消費者心目中主要意義為製造商，將可例外被賦予商標保護，此判決之出現，再次引起此類商標型態是否得取得商標註冊正反兩面之論辯。
本文將討論關於識別商標性質之方式，以及採用主要意義測試法時，蒐集直接與間接證據時應加以注意之細節，並配合過往相似案例做比對與評析。
關於此類詞彙取得商標保護後是否影響競爭之爭議，本文將討論商標混淆誤認審查應注意之處，分析此類商標權人提起混淆誤認訴訟是否高機率得取得勝訴之結果。並且對應至我國實務，以TutorABC提起之一系列訴訟案為例，比對我國與美國法院如何識別此類商標之性質。

關鍵詞：通用詞彙、藍能法、網域名稱、主要意義測試法

Disputes between trademarks and domain names often arise at the level of domain name registration. Recognizing that regulations addressing such disputes already exist both domestically and internationally, this article focuses on another aspect, namely the registration of trademarks combined with generic terms and generic top-level domains (gTLDs).
In the United States, there have been numerous controversies surrounding the determination of trademarks as generic or descriptive and the types of evidence that should be considered for validation.
The majority opinion of courts and administrative agencies holds that the combination of generic terms and top-level domains lacking trademark significance naturally cannot obtain trademark protection. Moreover, such trademark combinations raise concerns about anti-competitive practices. Based on these two reasons, trademarks of this nature are unable to be registered.
Until 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of the trademark registration for BOOKING.COM. The court held that if the combination of a generic term and a top-level domain name primarily conveys to relevant consumers that it is a specific brand, it may be eligible for trademark protection as an exception. The emergence of this ruling has once again sparked a debate on whether such trademark types can obtain trademark registration.
This article will discuss the methods of determining the nature of trademarks and the specific details to consider when applying the primary significance test, as well as compare and analyze them with similar past cases. Regarding the controversy over whether the protection of such terms as trademarks affects competition, this article will address the key considerations in the examination of trademark confusion and analyzing the likelihood of success for trademark holders in bringing claims of confusion. Furthermore, using a series of lawsuits initiated by TutorABC as an example, it will compare how such trademarks are determined in both our country and US courts.

Keywords: generic terms, Lanham Act, domain names, Primary Significance Test.

參考文獻
中文
陳昭華、王敏銓，商標法之理論與實務，元照出版，六版，2021年。
王敏銓，從模組理論看商標通用性與第二意義的連結，智慧財產權月刊 VOL.187，頁29，2012年。
張慧明，析論含網域名稱之商標審查，智慧財產權月刊VOL.31，頁37，2001年。
馮震宇，論市場調查於商標混淆誤認判斷之發展，智慧財產權月刊VOL.182，頁40，2014年。
鄧振球，商標名稱通用化之理論與實務，科技法學評論，5卷1期，頁183，2008年。
經濟部智慧財產局，商標法逐條釋義，2012年。
經濟部智慧財產局，商標法逐條釋義，2021年。
經濟部智慧財產局，商標識別性審查基準，2022年。
經濟部智慧財產局，混淆誤認之虞審查基準，2021年。
智慧財產及商業法院110年度行商訴字第53號判決。
智慧財產及商業法院110年度行商訴字第88號判決。
智慧財產及商業法院110年度行商訴字第90號判決。
智慧財產法院 105年民商訴字第9號民事判決 。
智慧財產法院 106 年民商訴字第9號民事判決 。
智慧財產法院102年度行商訴字第20號判決。
智慧財產法院106年民商訴字第14號民事判決 。
智慧財產法院106年度民商上字第12號民事判決。
智慧財產法院106年度行商訴字第90號判決。
智慧財產法院107年民商上字第1 號民事判決。
智慧財產法院107年度民商上字第5號民事判決。
智慧財產法院108年行商訴字第63號判決。
智慧財產法院108年度行商訴字第137號判決。
最高行政法院104年判字第488號判決。
最高行政法院109年上字第164號判決。
最高行政法院99年判字63號判決。
最高法院109年度台上字第2159號民事判決。
最高法院109年度台上字第2161號民事判決。
臺北高等行政法院97年訴字第932號判決。
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/zht/詞典/英語-漢語-繁體/art（最後瀏覽日：2023年3月30日）。
https://fbuon.com、https://igotojapan.com（最後瀏覽日：2023年3月30日）。
https://gTLD.tw/about.html（最後瀏覽日：2023年3月30日）。
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PMQ304XCQw、https://www.youtube.com/@bookingcom（最後瀏覽日：2023年3月30日）。
https://中文.台灣（最後瀏覽日：2023年3月30日）。
林慶隆、陳怡臻，現代美語語料庫(COCA)與語言資料庫(LDC)簡介，國家教育研究院，https://epaper.naer.edu.tw/edm.php?grp_no=2&edm_no=38&content_no=1040（最後瀏覽日：2023年3月30日）。
空中美語官方網站，https://www.english4u.net/about-glory.aspx（最後瀏覽日：2023年3月30日）。

英文
A & H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc., 237 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2000).
A.J. Canfield Co. v. Honickman, 808 F.2d 291 (3d Cir. 1986).
Advertise.com, Inc. v. AOL Advert., Inc., 616 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2010).
Advertise.com, Inc. v. AOL, LLC, No. CV 09-5983-VBF(CWX), 2010 WL 11507594(C.D. Cal. 2010).
Am. Footwear Corp. v. Gen. Footwear Co., 609 F.2d 655 (2d Cir. 1979).
Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 684 F.2d 1316 (9th Cir. 1982).
Berner Int'l Corp. v. Mars Sales Co., 987 F.2d 975 (3d Cir. 1993).
Black & Decker Mfg. Co. v. Ever-Ready Appliance Mfg. Co., 684 F.2d 546 (8th Cir. 1982).
Blue Ribbon Feed Co. v. Farmers Union Cent. Exch., Inc., 731 F.2d 415 (7th Cir. 1984).
Booking.com B.V. v. Matal, 278 F.Supp.3d 891 (E.D.Va. 2017).
Booking.com B.V. v. United States Pat. & Trademark Off., 915 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2019).
Borinquen Biscuit Corp. v. M.V. Trading Corp., 443 F.3d 112 (1st Cir. 2006).
Brookfield Commc'ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Ent. Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999).
Brunswick Corp. v. Spinit Reel Co., 832 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1987).
Butters, Ronald R., A Linguistic Look at Trademark Dilution, 24 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 507 (2008).
Byers, Kyle., Domain Extensions: .com vs .org, .net, .io & 4 Other TLDs, https://growthbadger.com/top-level-domains/ (1/30/2022).
Charles R. De Bevoise Co. v. H. & W. Co., 69 N.J. Eq. 114 (N.J.Ch. 1905).
Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am. Holdings, Inc., 696 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2012).
Cicena Ltd. v. Columbia Telecommunications Grp., 900 F.2d 1546, 1549 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Clorox Co. v. Sterling Winthrop, Inc., 117 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 1997).
COMPANY INFORMATION, https://www.lawyer.com/about-us/(last visited Mar. 30, 2023).
Daddy's Junky Music Stores, Inc. v. Big Daddy's Fam. Music Ctr., 109 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 1997).
Desai, Deven R., & Rierson, Sandra L., Confronting the Genericism Conundrum, 28 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (2007).
Dogan, Stacey L., & Lemley, Mark A., Trademarks and Consumer Search Costs on the Internet, 41 HOUS. L. REV. 777 (2004).
DuPont Cellophane Co. v. Waxed Prod. Co., 85 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1936).
E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Yoshida Int'l, Inc., 393 F. Supp. 502 (E.D.N.Y. 1975).
Elliott v. Google, Inc., 860 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017).
Entertainment, Home Page, https://www.entertainment.com/(last visited Mar. 30, 2023).
Ex Parte the Kalart Company Inc., 88 USPQ 221(1951).
FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER, REFERENCE GUIDE ON SURVEY RESEARCH (3d ed. 2011).
FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER, REFERENCE MANUAL ON SCI. EVID. (3d ed. 2011).
Gift of Learning Found., Inc. v. TGC, Inc., 329 F.3d 792 (11th Cir. 2003).
Goodyear Rubber Co. v. Goodyear's Rubber Mfg. Co., 22 Blatchf. 421 (C.C.N.Y. 1884).
Goodyear's Rubber Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U.S. 598 (U.S. 1888).
H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int'l Ass'n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Harley Davidson, Inc. v. Grottanelli, 164 F.3d 806 (2d Cir. 1999).
Herman Miller, Inc. v. Palazzetti Imports & Exports, Inc., 270 F.3d 298(6th Cir. 2001).
Heymann, Laura A., Trademarks in Conversation: Assessing Genericism After Booking.com, 39 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L.J. 955 (2021)
Homeowners Grp., Inc. v. Home Mktg. Specialists, Inc., 931 F.2d 1100 (6th Cir. 1991).
Hoopes, Neal A., Reclaiming the Primary Significance Test: Dictionaries, Corpus Linguistics, and Trademark Genericide, 54 TULSA L. REV. 407 (2019).
HQM, Ltd. v. Hatfield, 71 F. Supp. 2d 500 (D. Md. 1999).
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/zht/%E8%A9%9E%E5%85%B8/%E5%9F%BA%E7%A4%8E%E7%BE%8E%E5%BC%8F%E8%8B%B1%E8%AA%9E/booking (last visited Mar. 30, 2023).
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/zht/%E8%A9%9E%E5%85%B8/%E8%8B%B1%E8%AA%9E-%E6%BC%A2%E8%AA%9E-%E7%B9%81%E9%AB%94/art (last visited Mar. 30, 2023).
https://houseofreservations.com/reservationmanagement (last visited Mar. 30, 2023).
https://trends.google.com.tw/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F0yxzc1z (last visited Mar. 30, 2023).
https://www.verisign.com/en_US/domain-names/dnib/index.xhtml?cmp=CM-BLOGPOST-DNIB-Q3-22 (last visited Mar. 30, 2023).
Hunt Masters, Inc. v. Landry's Seafood Rest., Inc., 240 F.3d 251 (4th Cir. 2001).
In re Am. Fertility Soc., 188 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
In re Booking.com B.V., No. 85485097, 2016 WL 1045674 (T.T.A.B. 2016).
In re C.E. Shepherd Co., L.P., No. 88636382, 2022 WL 16757662 (T.T.A.B. 2022).
In re Country Music Ass'n, Inc., 100 U.S.P.Q.2d 1824 (T.T.A.B. 2011).
In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
In re Gj & Am, LLC, No. SERIAL 86858003, 2021 WL 2374670 (P.T.A.B. June 8, 2021).
In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
In re Hotels.com, L.P., 573 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
In re Hotels.com, L.P., 87 U.S.P.Q.2d 1100 (T.T.A.B. 2008).
In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In re Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., 482 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
In re Seaquist Valve Co. Div. Pittway Corp., 169 USPQ 245 (T.T.A.B. 1971).
In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In re Summers, No. 88626569, 2021 WL 2392480 (T.T.A.B. 2021).
Interactive Prod. Corp. v. a2z Mobile Off. Sols., Inc., 326 F.3d 687 (6th Cir. 2003).
Interstellar Starship Servs., Ltd. v. Epix, Inc., 304 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2002)
J. THOMAS MCCARTHY, MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION, (5th ed. 2023).
Katz v. Kapper, 7 Cal. App. 2d 1, 4, 44 P.2d 1060 (1935).
Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (U.S. 1938).
King-Seeley Thermos Co. v. Aladdin Indus., Inc., 321 F.2d 577 (2d Cir. 1963).
Lee, Thomas R., Trademarks, Consumer Psychology, and the Sophisticated Consumer, 57 EMORY L.J. 575 (2008).
Linford, Jake., A Linguistic Justification for Protecting "Generic" Trademarks, 17 YALE J. L. & TECH. 110 (2015).
Liquid Controls Corp. v. Liquid Control Corp., 802 F.2d 934 (7th Cir. 1986)
Magic Wand, Inc. v. RDB, Inc., 940 F.2d 638 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Mar. Madness Athletic Ass'n, L.L.C. v. Netfire, Inc., 162 F. Supp. 2d 560 (N.D. Tex. 2001).
Mil-Mar Shoe Co. v. Shonac Corp., 75 F.3d 1153 (7th Cir. 1996).
Murphy Door Bed Co. v. Interior Sleep Sys., Inc., 874 F.2d 95 (2d Cir. 1989).
Nestle Co. v. Chester's Mkt., Inc., 571 F. Supp. 763 (D. Conn. 1983).
Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Corp., 378 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004).
Nola Spice Designs, L.L.C. v. Haydel Enterprises, Inc., 783 F.3d 527 (5th Cir. 2015).
NuPulse, Inc. v. Schlueter Co., 853 F.2d 545 (7th Cir. 1988).
Off. Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385 (9th Cir. 1993).
Omni Spectra, Inc., 143 USPQ 458 (T.T.A.B. 1964).
Performance Open Wheel Racing, Inc., No. 91229632, 2019 WL 2404075 (T.T.A.B. 2019).
Petersen Mfg. Co., 229 USPQ 466 (T.T.A.B. 1986).
Pierce, Vanessa Bowman., If It Walks Like A Duck and Quacks Like A Duck, Shouldn't It Be A Duck?: How A "Functional" Approach Ameliorates the Discontinuity Between the "Primary Significance" Tests for Genericness and Secondary Meaning, 37 N.M. L. REV. 147 (2007).
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prod. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 165, 115 S. Ct. 1300, 1304, 131 L. Ed. 2d 248 (1995).
Reed-Union Corp. v. Turtle Wax, Inc., 869 F. Supp. 1304 (N.D. Ill. 1994).
Reinalt-Thomas Corp. v. Mavis Tire Supply, LLC, 391 F. Supp. 3d 1261 (N.D. Ga. 2019).
Rierson, Sandra L., Toward A More Coherent Doctrine of Trademark Genericism and Functionality: Focusing on Fair Competition, 27 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 691 (2017).
Roberts, Alexandra J., Mark Talk, 39 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L.J. 1001(2021).
Royal Crown Co., Inc. v. The Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Scandia Down Corp. v. Euroquilt, Inc., 772 F.2d 1423 (7th Cir. 1985).
Self-Realization Fellowship Church v. Ananda Church of Self-Realization, 59 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 1995).
Sheetz of Delaware, Inc. v. Drs. Assocs. Inc., 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1341 (T.T.A.B. 2013).
Snyder's Lance, Inc. v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc., 542 F.Supp.3d 371 (W.D.N.C. 2021).
St. Luke's Cataract & Laser Inst., P.A. v. Sanderson, 573 F.3d 1186 (11th Cir. 2009).
Teply, Larry., & Folsom, Ralph., Trademarked Generic Words, 89 YALE L.J. 1323 (1980).
Timelines, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 938 F. Supp. 2d 781 (N.D. Ill. 2013).
Timoshenko, Artem., & Hauser, John R., Identifying Customer Needs from User‐Generated Content, MARKETING SCIENCE VOL. 38, NO. 1, 1, 4 (2018).
TMEP §1209.01(c)(i) (24th ed. 2022).
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. Tabari, 610 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2010).
Underwood v. Bank of Am. Corp., 996 F.3d 1038 (10th Cir. 2021).
United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248 U.S. 90, 97, 39 S. Ct. 48, 51, 63 L. Ed. 141 (1918).
United States Pat. & Trademark Off. v. Booking.com B. V., 207 L. Ed. 2d 738, 140 S. Ct. 2298 (2020).
USPTO, Examination Guide 3-20 Generic.com Terms after USPTO v. Booking.com (2020), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/TM-ExamGuide-3-20.pdf.
WE ARE ART, https://www.art.com/~/about-us (last visited Mar. 30, 2023).
WIPO, Guide to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/guide/#a2 (last visited Mar. 30, 2023).
Wynn Oil Co. v. Am. Way Serv. Corp., 943 F.2d 595 (6th Cir. 1991).
Yale Electric Corporation v. Robertson, 26 F.2d 972(2 Cir. 1928).
Zimmerman v. Realtors, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1425 (T.T.A.B. 2004).